If you haven't heard by now that Hillary Clinton allegedly
called Bill Clinton's congressional campaign manager Paul Fray a "f******
Jew bastard" in 1974 you've been avoiding the media, something that
can be easily forgiven.

I'm not going to take Hillary Clinton to task over the allegation since
it has yet to be proved that she actually did say it. Rather, it is media
itself that once again has reserved itself a spot in the coldest part
of my heart. Although they actually reported on the allegation, it is
the manner in which they covered the story that I found interesting.

Take yourself back to a time not too long ago when a Republican nominee
faced allegations that he was a regular cocaine user back in the 1970s.
The evidence against this nominee was non-existent, save for a book that
made the charge without so much as one piece of evidence that could be
checked out. That, of course, didn't stop the media from pounding said
candidate with questions about his past for weeks. The story eventually
lost its legs after no evidence could be found to support the allegations.

Contrast that with the charge of using an anti-Semitic slur back in the
early 1970s, about the same time that Republican candidate was allegedly
visiting another plane of existence, which Hillary Clinton faces. Although
the media has dutifully asked the expected questions, there is no feeding
frenzy despite the fact that three people claim to have actually been
in her presence when she allegedly made the comment.

If they aren't doing their job only half-heartedly, some members of the
media are actually spinning the story to attack those who brought the
story to light. One of them is Salon magazine's Jake Tapper, a writer
who accuses Republicans of spreading the "dubious" allegations.
The regular villains are responsible for the allegation, wrote Tapper
on July 19, people like Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, Matt Drudge
and even Rupert Murdoch, with the "right-leaning Aussie's fingerprints
[found] all over the story's procession through the media food chain."

But that's Salon magazine, the most prominent online apologist for the
Clinton Administration, and it's expected that they would rather attack
the messengers then investigate the message itself. What disappoints me
- as it usually does - is the manner the story was handled by the media.
They have once again proved that soft gloves come out if the accused is
a Democrat while Republicans can expect a cauldron.

Proving once again that he is a petty man who doesn't deserve to be called
a leader, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien refuses to say
when - and if - he will announce a byelection so that Canada's newest
party leader can take a seat in the House of Commons.

Chrétien even refused to promise he'd call a byelection in time
for Stockwell Day to win the Okanagan-Coquihalla seat before September.
That means Day could be left out of the Commons when Parliament resumes
for the fall session.

While Chrétien has six months to call the byelection, the prime
minister traditionally calls for a quick byelection so a new opposition
leader can gain a Commons seat quickly. Chrétien himself was extended
that courtesy after winning his party's leadership in 1990.

Doubtless it's because Day, the newly minted leader of the Canadian Alliance,
is head of a populist conservative party which will give Chrétien's
Liberals a serious run for their money in many parts of the country. I
can understand that because in politics there are no such things as free
rides. The person in the big chair is the one that makes the decisions
and they will inevitably rig the process so that it favours them. It may
disappoint me, but it doesn't surprise me.

What disgusted me is that Chrétien stated the reason why he wouldn't
call the election is because he wanted to "consult the people of
the riding. I want to hear what they have to say."

The people of the Okanagan-Coquihalla spoke in the last federal election
when they elected Jim Hart, a candidate from the Reform Party, the predecessor
of the Canadian Alliance. Hart is resigning to be with his family and
to give his new leader a seat so that his voice may he heard. Not only
should Chrétien heed the voices of constituents in the riding,
he should also take note that the Canadian Alliance is the Official Opposition
in Parliament.

While Chrétien claims to be "looking forward to confronting"
Day over the Canadian Alliance's platform, it seems he just doesn't want
to do it on level ground. A true leader.

web
posted July 17, 2000

Opposed to abortion? Attacks against doctors are your fault.

That seemed to be the message in Canada last week after a doctor who
performs abortions in Vancouver was stabbed, reportedly over the testing
of abortion pill RU-486.

Stockwell Day, the newly minted leader of the conservative Canadian Alliance,
is well known for his opposition to abortion. Within hours of the attack
on the abortionist, Day was asked by reporters whether his type of beliefs
had created the atmosphere which lead to the stabbing of Dr. Garson Romalis.
Repeatedly. Clearly angered, Day responded that, "I utterly condemn
violence. I hope the full weight of law is applied to the individual when
they are apprehended."

That wasn't enough for the media who then demanded to know whether Day
supported tougher sentences for those who attack abortionists. But Day
would not back a call for a special, tougher category of crimes for crimes
committed at abortion clinics. He said his party advocates stiffer sentences
for all violent crimes. That wasn't enough for one reporter who continued
to pester Day, finally earning an angry response from the CA leader.

"How would you like me to spell it out? Denounce, condemn, outrageous,
untenable . . . there is no way I would countenance anything like this,"
said Day.

If it wasn't the media, it was pro-choice groups like the Canadian Abortion
Rights Action League who pinned some of the blame for the attack on the
right-wing party and Day.

"This really comes as no surprise to us at CARAL, because of the
amount of anti-choice, extremist rhetoric that there's been out there,
especially on the part of the candidates for the Alliance," said
CARAL's Marilyn Wilson.

Day has never hidden that he is personally opposed to abortion, but has
said he would not move to criminalize it or change Canadian law unless
there was a citizen-led movement to do so. Real extremist stuff there.
I guess it is for CARAL and Canada's liberal media.

Surely you've an essay on what happened to America's Founding Fathers
after they dared to sign the Declaration of Independence? ESR printed
Rush Limbaugh Jr.'s version here earlier this month. Along with that essay,
there are several versions floating around which essentially tell the
same story: many of the signers ended up losing either their lives, property
or family...or all of the above. It's the type of story not told in schools
anymore because that time would be better on sensitivity training.

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby, the lone conservative voice on that
newspaper, discovered just that. His Independence Day column (published
July 2) happened to be on the fate of the signers. Ostensibly, it wasn't
his choice of subject matter that angered the Globe's liberal elite, but
the fact that his essay sounded similar to all the other essays written
on the subject.

After reading Limbaugh's version and all the others circulated by e-mail,
Jacoby did his own research and found some errors. Correcting those errors,
Jacoby then wrote his own column. The Globe announced days later that
they would suspend him for four months without pay because he failed to
inform readers that his column was based on other similar writings. The
newspaper stopped short of declaring him a plagiarist and called their
response "balanced."

"In the past, Jeff had the audacity to question frequently, and
with eloquence, what is more and more becoming the accepted norm in this
era of moral revisionism. His views are conservative and based upon his
value-system as a Sabbath-observant Jew. It is no secret that some of
his coworkers -- 'colleagues' is hardly the apt word -- at the Globe wanted
him purged, as documented by several media accounts."

No secret at all why...

web
posted July 3, 2000

It's a good thing that U.S. President Bill Clinton was "satisfied"
at the outcome of the Elian Gonzalez saga while Attorney General Janet
Reno was "very pleased" and that she wanted everyone to "join
me in wishing this family, and this special little boy, well."

How this special little boy will be "well" in a communist slave
state was a question left unanswered by Reno but it's just as well that
she didn't try. It probably wouldn't have been very pretty.

It's also an interesting reversal of history -- and the repeat of another
odious incident -- that most Americans are happy that Elian was sent back
to a country that will force him to work in the sugar cane fields when
he's not in school. Back when Fidel Castro first took power, over 14 000
children were sent out of Cuba by their parents to the United States to
ensure that, while they wouldn't see their family for years, they would
at least live in freedom.

The exodus, Operation Pedro Pan as it was known, had the support of the
public, various levels of government and religious groups. American families
opened their homes and their hearts to children who often spoke no English
and had no family here. It's the type of thing that shows the true character
of a nation.

Having Elian sent back to Cuba reminds me of another incident as well.
Just before the Second World War a ship carrying hundreds of Jewish families
left Germany for...well, anywhere they wouldn't be forced to wear yellow
Star of Davids on their clothes to identify themselves as undesirables
to their former friends in the neighborhoods.

The ship went to nation to nation seeking safe harbour but was continually
refused. The ship eventually returned to Germany and its passengers later
found themselves in various concentration camps.

The parallel isn't the same obviously. Elian, unless he becomes an anti-government
activist, doesn't have to fear joining the 75 000 people that Castro has
had murdered for various reasons while the fate of the Jews was all but
sealed the moment Adolph Hitler sat in the big chair at the Reichstag.
That incident, however, also showed the character of nations.

Right now it's hard to find much good to say about the character of America.
There's little you can do to regain it because that ship already left
as well.

web
posted June 26, 2000

That Ralph Nader is a millionaire who invests his money
in the stock market is hardly surprising. Like Nader, there was another
philosopher who wrote anti-capitalist screeds calling for an end to the
classical liberal way of life. His name was Karl Marx. Seems one of the
primary movers of communism loved to invest money in the London Stock
Exchange.

Nader has received a lot of press over the years for his rumpled suits
and cheap shoes, but the fact of his wealth was known -- just not widely
reported by his doting press. Although he publicly proclaimed poverty,
Nader spent most of his time at his wealthy sister's house...bourgeoisie
living without the bourgeoisie bill.

After years of refusing to reveal the extent of his wealth, Nader recently
went beyond the call of duty and filed a 21-page filing with the Federal
Election Commission that was more detailed than required. Although he
claims to give away 80 per cent of his after-tax income, Nader's finances
are firmly in the black.

Nader has a net worth of at least $3.8 million, including $1.2 million
in stock in Cisco Systems Inc. He owns smaller amounts of five other technology-related
stocks and has more than $2 million in two money-market funds. He lists
no debt. He also admits to making at least $13 million since 1967 in royalties,
honoraria, interest income, and writing and television fees. Nice work
if you can get it.

Of course, news of Nader's secret financial empire didn't seem to disappoint
his followers in the mainstream media. Despite his wealth, they wrote
glowingly about Nader's decades old Underwood typewriter that needs a
new ribbon, how he hasn't owned a car since the 1950s, and how his television
is a small black and white model with spotty reception. Life must be rough.

"Aside from modest personal expenses, I have always treated my income
as a de facto philanthropic fund for many projects and institutions that
serve the interests of consumers, the environment, labor and more accountable
business and government," he said in a statement attached to his
federal filing. "In short, monies I earn are for strengthening civil
society."

I don't begrudge Nader his millions, I would have done the same if I
were in his position. With one exception, I wouldn't have played the pauper
while having a net worth more than most people.

The
Vinegar in Freedom Award

There is an old Serbian proverb that says vinegar in freedom tastes
better than honey in slavery. This award is meant for events and people
Enter Stage Right considers to be positive.

web
posted July 24, 2000

Small miracles are all we can expect when it comes to freedom these days.
One of those occurred on July 17.

Late that night, the U.S. House of Representatives rejected the Internet
Gambling Prohibition Act, sponsored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). The
legislation, which would have banned nearly all forms of Internet gambling,
was voted on under suspension on a 245-159 vote, falling short of the
two-thirds needed for passage. The bill had an impressive and diverse
group backing it including the casino industry, the FBI, the Christian
Coalition, the National Council of Churches, and the National Association
of Attorneys General.

Despite its defeat, if 60 per cent of members voting in favour of something
can be termed a defeat, failed to dissuade Goodlatte who says he'll bring
the legislation up for a vote again in the near future.

"I am pleased that more than 60 percent of my colleagues in the
House understand the importance of this vital legislation," Goodlatte
said in a statement. "It is of utmost importance that this legislation
is passed and signed into law this year. The Internet Gambling Prohibition
Act is vital to protect our children and communities from the problems
of addiction, crime, bankruptcy, and family difficulties that come from
gambling."

It's interesting to note, however, that Goodlatte didn't try and ban
all forms of gambling. It's also interesting to note that the casinos
aren't shy with handing out money to Republicans either. Still, what bothers
me and Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) is that online gambling was treated
differently.

"Regulating commerce on the Internet different from other commerce
is a dangerous precedent, and invites significant new regulation of the
Internet," Cox said. "We can do better than this. ... we will
do better than this."

That last sentence should scare everyone who believes people should have
a right to decide what to do with their time and money and take the responsibility
that comes along with the decision. We can at least feel satisfied that
40 per cent of the House did the right thing and vote to keep government
out of yet one more aspect of our lives. For the time being at least.

web
posted July 3, 2000

It's rare that the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision that both conservatives
and some gays applaud. While both claim they are fighting for legitimate
rights, neither considers the other's position to have much merit.

The exception to the rule occurred on June 28 when the court ruled that
the Boy Scouts of America can bar homosexuals from being troop leaders.
The justices by a 5-4 vote overturned a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling
that the dismissal of a gay Scout leader had been illegal under the state's
anti-discrimination law.

The Boy Scouts, which also exclude atheists and agnostics as leaders,
said it has the right to decide who can join its ranks.

While most gays supported James Dale's suit against the Boy Scouts, many
others did not because they saw the inherent flaw in an argument which
demanded that their rights be respected while simultaneously arguing that
the freedoms of association and free speech do not exist when it suits
them.

Whether you agree or not with the beliefs of the Boy Scouts, the ruling
was a victory for freedom. It essentially means that private organizations,
like the Boy Scouts, are allowed to set their own standards for membership.
It protects the essential rights of freedom of association and free speech
for all, whether Boy Scouts or gay.

It's not a surprise then that the ruling was applauded by people on both
sides of the cultural and political divide.

Have someone you want considered for the Earth is Flat Award or
the Vinegar in Freedom Award? Email
ESR with your candidates!